Talk:Apple Corps v Apple Computer

2009 section

While the 2009 section as it is currently is interesting and relevant to Apple Corps, I don't think it's relevant in this case, is it? --Ethd (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sosumi

The "sosumi" statement needs a source, particularly as to its timing and the supposed objections by the lawyers. Also the sentence "In other words,..." explaining the meaning of the distribution provisions in the agreement should go. What that clause meant was a central issue in the recent trial. --agr 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I'm embarressed to say semi-protection didn't occur to me, but after the recent tagging I have done just that. Some of the vandalism included what purported to be an admin's home phone number, so I've had to delete and restore the page twice.

I'll unprotect as soon as the article is off the front page. If I forget, or if you're a new user who wants some information added in the meantime, please drop me a line on my talk page. --kingboyk 20:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up this Paragraph, please

"The trial opened on March 29, 2006 in the UK.[5] In opening arguments, Apple Corps' lawyer said that in 2003, shortly before the launch of Apple's on-line music store, Apple Corps rejected a $1 million offer from Apple Computer to use the Apple name on the iTunes store. Judgement was issued in favour of Apple Computer on May 8, 2006.[6][7] "I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated," the presiding judge Mr Justice Mann said.[8][9]"

It's poorly written, and it dosn't issue Apple Computer's rebuttle. and I also have a problem with this last sentance. I might actually do it myself, but I currently don't have enough time. RiseRobotRise 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason, of course, is that each sentence has been added in at different times, as the case progressed. It certainly needs some cleaning and some beefing up about what was said in the judgement. Thanks for your feedback. Hopefully somebody with some expertise will come along having seen it on the front page and improve it a little, if not I'll see what I can do tommorow. --kingboyk 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear RiseRobotRise (nice name) why not do it yourself? If you know it's wrong, then you can fix it. Have fun. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Apple Computer's Logo

That is NOT Apple Computer's origonal logo, but the origonal well-known one. Their origonal logo is a renisance-looking picture of an 1860's style lady sitting under a tree with a golden apple in it, which is shinging brightly to promotoe itself. A series of hills make the illusion of distance in th ebackgrounds, and a setting sun rounds out the sky. "Apple" and "Computer" are seen on two banners on the top and bottom respectivley. {Source" "Fire In The Valley: The making of the personal computer. I dont have book with me and will try to remember to update this page with its vital stats but might forget. Hit my talk page if its not done withing a week or so). Apple COmputer changed their logo before they "made it big"; it was an in-garage descison so to speak. Their origonal logo will be very hard to find, it will probably be easier to change the caption on the current picture. Will Probably have to wait for the semi-protection to come off. geeky 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I found the orional Apple Computer Corp Logo on the Apple Computer Corporation page. We should switch it back (My mistake, it is Sir Isaac Newton, not a woman. lol)geeky 17:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected, so if you need to make any correction go ahead. I added the logo, and my expertise is in the Beatles' Apple not Apple Computer. I'm quite happy to accept that caption may not be entirely accurate :) --kingboyk 19:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Newton under the apple tree was the first Apple logo, but the striped apple was the first logo of Apple Computer, Inc.. See Apple Computer#Logo. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll add a footnote or something along those lines about the logo then.geeky 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really not necessary. The edit to the caption I made should be sufficient. This isn't an article about Apple's logo. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Beatle's project debate

This should go in The Beatles' project, but I think it should be written in American English, not British, as it also involves Apple Computer (An American company). geeky 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple Corps (a UK outfit) is the one suing, though... I think British English is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

English law applies! ;) ..dave souza, talk 18:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, didn't think of that geeky 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the two companies

Is there any relevance in who was there first? Corps. was founded in 1968 but Computer started in c.1975. I don't know anything about the dates of filing of trademarks though, but as a non-expert looking at the article at face value it's the one thing I'm left wanting to know. If being there first didn't give one company a particular advantage, it might still be pertinent to explain why. BigBlueFish 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Trademarks are slippery things. First doesn't mean your trademark is now pre-eminent in every domain. If I make a "tornado" brand cloths dryer it does not mean I have a valid trademark on "tornado" blenders too unless I make that products and register the trademark. Some trademarks became so common that they no longer exists as a trademark. Such as Xerox, Aspirin, band aid. So Apple Corp and Apple computers fought over this issue. Founded first doesn't mean much as at the time Apple computers and products in a separate domain then Apple Corp. One was music one was computers. When Apple Computers started to creep in to the domain of Apple Corp with various Music programs on the Apple computer lines then Apple Corp started lawsuits. 142.179.200.76 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' Love

It looks to me, based on promotional/documentary videos available at The Beatles' website, that remixing of the tracks for the new album from The Beatles, Love, was done using an Apple computer. How peculiar. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"owned by the beatles"

Saying Apple Records is owned by the Beatles doesn't seem quite accurate to me, since no actual Beatle has any rights to the music, so there is no ownership there. Could this be rephrased? "The record company that owns the rights to the Beatle's music" seems kinda wordy, maybe someone can come up with something better.

Apple Records is owned by The Beatles. The Beatles' music isn't owned by The Beatles, necessarily. They are two separate things. There's more music released by Apple Records than just The Beatles (which, incidentally, is only the later stuff). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Apple Computer is now Apple

Apple Computer, Inc. renamed itself to Apple, Inc. in January 2007. 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)~

Remastering and reissuing the Beatles catalogue

"plans have been announced by Neil Aspinall to completely remaster and release the entire Beatles catalogue on unspecified online music services, as well as to release some previously unheard work by the band. No firm date has been set for this as yet."

Well he'd better hurry up, as Please Please Me goes out of copyright in the UK in 2013! (unless they change the copyright law by then of course) --kingboyk 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Can someone look at The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything (references, etc.) that you want to take from it before it (the Apple V Apple story) gets zapped, as this page makes it superfluous. Thanks.ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Two "References" sections

Any reason for there to be two references sections? Robert (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How justice was not served

I lived in the Bay Area, home to Apple, when Apple Computer introduced its label. It was openly and commonly discussed that their intention was to rip off the Beatles and draw a false association with them. Amazing how time has covered what was common knowledge with a patina of legalisms. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Apple Inc paid over 500 million pounds, I would suggest that justice was indeed served.174.73.5.74 (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sosumi (1991)

The article totally needs clarification about how sosumi is involved in the 1991 lawsuit/settlement. I didn't find any sources that the settlement started because of that sound. Balabiot (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Apple now officially owns Beatles' Apple Corps Logo

A company had opposed Apple's ownership of the logo, but the electronics giant was issued the registered trademark yesterday, according to Patently Apple. CNET News, October 25, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.107.240.36 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/10/the-beatles-apple-corps-logo-is-now-a-registered-tm-of-apple.html -GoingBatty (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)